JUDGMENT : In a rather unusual sight, the Vice Chancellors of eight Universities in Kerala have approached this Court, through the afore different writ petitions. 2. Since the petitioners in these matters have sought similar reliefs, hypostised on comparable factual pleadings; and because the impugned proceedings is the same in all of them, I have heard the afore writ petitions together and proceed to dispose them of jointly. 3. At the core of the allegations of the petitioners is the imputation that the Chancellor of the Universities – of which they are the Vice Chancellors -issued an analogously worded communication dated 23.10.2022 to each of them, informing that 'they are all ceased to be the Vice Chancellor of respective University with effect from 21.10.2022' (sic); and thus asking them to 'submit your resignation by 11.30 a.m. on 24.10.2022' (sic). 4. The petitioners vehemently assert that the afore communications are per se illegal, incompetent and beyond the jurisdiction of the Chancellor to have issued them. 5. The petitioners singularly predicate that, subject to the differences in the nuances of the factual factors presented and involved in each of their cases, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the Chancellor of the Universities, in the impugned communications, have no bearing on their appointments or on the facts involved in their individual scenario; but that even without giving them an opportunity of explaining so, the afore declaration has been thrust upon them; thus justifying their legitimate apprehension that they will have to cease their office as Vice Chancellors forthwith. 6. I have heard Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.A.Asif, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33828/2022; Sri.Renjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Krishnakumar, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33826/2022; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.33821/2022; Sri.Elvin Peter.P.J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33820/2022;Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33824/2022; Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33822/2022; Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33823/2022;Sri.Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33825/2022; Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmy, learned Standing Counsel for the Chancellor of the Universities and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Sri.S.Kannan, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the State of Kerala in all these matters. 7. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmy, learned Standing Counsel for the Chancellor of the Universities and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Sri.S.Kannan, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the State of Kerala in all these matters. 7. Sri.P.Ravindran and Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel, made very assertive submissions with respect to the manner in which the impugned communications have been issued by the Chancellor of the Universities. Their argument was that, as long as the respective parent Acts applicable to the Universities do not provide any power to the Chancellor, to either declare the appointments of Vice Chancellors to be illegal, or to cancel the same on any ground other than what is enumerated in it, he could not have acted as has been reflected in these cases. They also imputed that the action of the Chancellor is in flagrant violation of the principles of fair play and natural justice, since even the parent Acts provide the petitioners an opportunity to explain -but without admitting that he has jurisdiction to call for such; and hence that their removal is per se incompetent, especially when imposed with less than 24 hours notice. 8. Sri.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the Vice-Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University -the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33820/2022, in addition, argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to by the Chancellor of the Universities in the impugned communications, namely Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr.Rajasree M.S. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.7634-7635 of 2022), would not apply to the appointments of any of the petitioners in this batch, because the Hon'ble Court had delivered the same in the backdrop of the 2010 Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC), as amended by its 2013 notification; while all the petitioners in these cases were appointed under the 2018 Regulations of the UGC, which are completely distinct. He then adopted the other submissions of the learned Senior Counsel as afore. 9. He then adopted the other submissions of the learned Senior Counsel as afore. 9. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33821/2022 -who is the Vice Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology, submitted that even if the appointment of a Vice Chancellor may be null or void, the Chancellor cannot act suo motu or unilaterally and has to await someone to challenge it before this Court, through the plea for issuance of a writ of quo warranto; and that the judgment in Sreejith (supra) was delivered in personam, hence incapable of being used as a standard to assess the validity of the appointments of other Vice Chancellors in the State. 10. Sri.N.Raghuraj and Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the Vice Chancellors of Thunchath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University and Calicut University respectively, took me extensively through the parent Acts of the said Universities, to argue that when the Chancellor is not vested with any power to remove the Vice Chancellor, he could not only have issued the impugned communications, but cannot initiate action against them in future. 11. As far as Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33823/2022-Vice-Chancellor of Sree Sankarachanrya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, is concerned, he had an adscititious argument that, though the Act applicable to the said University allows the Chancellor to act against the Vice Chancellor, inter alia, on 'good and sufficient grounds', it will still require an enquiry to be done through a committee as stipulated therein. He then pointed out that, going by Exhibit P6 produced in the said writ petition, the Search Committee had found his client to be imminent and extra ordinary; and therefore, that his candidature was proposed by it unanimously, in preference to other six candidates. He also thus prayed that the impugned communication of the Chancellor be set aside. 12. Sri.Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33825/2022 – the Vice Chancellor of KUFOS, attempted a deviation from the afore contentions, saying that, as far as the Act of the said University is concerned, what is required is that there should be a panel of not more than three candidates to be placed before the Chancellor; and hence that said panel can also have a single name. He then argued that the 'UGC Regulations' do not apply either tohis client or to the University; and that, in any case, the Chancellor could not have acted in the manner as he has now done, because his client's appointment is already under challenge in W.P.(C)No.16475/2021, at the instance of another person, through the plea for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. He contended that, therefore, the Chancellor could not have issued the impugned communications. 13. Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the Chancellor of the Universities involved – who is the same Authority, ex officio in his capacity as the Governor of the State -in response, argued that the impugned communications were issued in good faith and with an intent to notify and inform each of the Vice Chancellors that, going by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their appointments are not only untenable but void ab initio. The learned Senior Counsel, thereafter, asserted that, it is solely to save them of the ignominy of facing such removal, that the Chancellor offered them the option of an honourable exit, by tendering their resignations, so as to pave way for initiation of fresh processes for the appointment of new Vice Chancellors, in terms of the inviolable holdings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He vehemently submitted that his client has acted wholly bona fide, without any intent to cause consternation to any of the Vice Chancellors; and that he had no other option, but to initiate action because, as is perspicuous from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sunder Das & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6706/2022) and Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Others (2022 (2) KLT Online 1106), the Chancellor of the Universities involved in those cases was even found fault with in not having followed the specific declarations made therein. He explained that, it is solely in such circumstances, his client was constrained to act, particularly in view of Sreejith (supra), which relates to a University in Kerala. 14. He explained that, it is solely in such circumstances, his client was constrained to act, particularly in view of Sreejith (supra), which relates to a University in Kerala. 14. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter submitted that, since none of the Vice Chancellors accepted the option of tendering their resignations, the Chancellor intends to now initiate appropriate action against them, in implicit obedience to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; for which purpose, they have already been served with notices asking them to show cause by 03.11.2022. He concluded his submissions saying that it is only after the explanation of each of the petitioners in these cases is considered by the Chancellor in its proper perspective, will he take any further action, as may be warranted under the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law which governs the field. 15. Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, interestingly, submitted that the State do not and does not intend to take sides with either the Chancellor or the Vice Chancellors and that the Government will abide by the directions to be issued by this Court. 16. The rival positions of all parties being thus recorded, I must say that the submissions of Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the Chancellor, clear the air to a large and substantial extent, as far as the specific controversy projected in these cases. 17. I say as afore since, prima facie, this Court has reservations regarding the impugned communications issued by the Chancellor because: for the first, it asks the Vice Chancellors to tender their resignations, and that too within the shortest period possible; and, for the second, it declares that they have ceased to be the Vice Chancellors with effect from 21.10.2022. 18. I do not require to expatiate, nor do I need to rely on any precedents, to declare that no one can be legally forced to tender resignation. Pertinently, Sri.Jaju Babu explains this, saying that the Chancellor was only offering an advice, so as to save the Vice Chancellors from the fate of being removed from office ab initio. Obviously, this Court cannot grant imprimatur to any such advice, and for that reason alone, the impugned communications will have to fail. 19. For the second, as I have already said above, the Chancellor has declared that the Vice Chancellors involved in these cases have ceased to be in office after 21.10.2022. Obviously, this Court cannot grant imprimatur to any such advice, and for that reason alone, the impugned communications will have to fail. 19. For the second, as I have already said above, the Chancellor has declared that the Vice Chancellors involved in these cases have ceased to be in office after 21.10.2022. Apart from the fact that no such 'declaration' could have been made by the Chancellor without following due procedure, I completely fail to gather and fathom the purport of his afore statement because, hypothetically speaking, if, as per the conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore cited precedents, had any or all of the vitiating factors stated therein become attached to the petitioners, or to any one of them, their appointments are not illegal or untenable from 21.10.2022 alone, the Hon'ble Court having specifically used the phrase 'void ab initio'. 20. That being said, since Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, now says that the Chancellor himself has issued fresh notices to each of the petitioners – which is affirmed at the Bar by their respective learned counsel -asking them to show cause why action could not be taken against them, I am certain that the relevance of the impugned communications is, by far, lost. 21. This is unmistakable because, once the Chancellor apparently has offered the petitioners an opportunity to show cause against certain action proposed by him, it ineluctably means that they are still in service and certainly eligible to continue as Vice Chancellors, until such time as their term of office expires, or until they are removed as per law. In summation, the afore writ petitions are allowed and the impugned communications/orders of the Chancellor of the Universities involved in these cases, are hereby set aside. After I dictated this judgment, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel and certain other learned counsel for the petitioners, requested this Court to record their clients' objections qua the show cause notices stated to have been issued to them by the Chancellor. I am afraid that it is not available to them to urge so in these writ petitions because, the said notices are not under challenge.